Australia is one of the largest exporters of gas in the world, the only one without a reservation policy. Countries like Japan who buy our gas export more on to other countries than the entire Australian market uses demonstrating that more gas supply will not benefit Australia. To give approval to companies that continue to be questionable in regard to following the law and using Australian tax payer funded courts, police, administration and governance would be foolish at best. With these basic concepts notably absent from the project reports and documentation, there is no justification for the ongoing loss of wealth and value taken for this project.
This project if approved, foreigners will be given wealth and health taken from Australians without justification or value exchange. The fossil fuel industries own reports show that gas mining specifically, damages towns as it strips the trained staff away from employers and overall, leads to less jobs in time as the town never recovers and more jobs overall are lost than were ever created for the short term mining. Thus the justification for jobs is also proven a misnomer by the gas industries own reports, be it on page 503. I assume government officials dont read all the way to the back considering the situation.
Looking specifically at this project, the pipeline has not demonstrated it is the least impactful route scientifically. This is shown in the reports with words used to smooth over failures and shortcomings in the surveys. Basic day and night studies, limited in nature, would be better described as trying to not find anything. The details are important if the reason for the entire project is solid. Unfortunately, this project is so poor in outcome, it will lead to a net loss from Australia, focusing on details would waste time as thus working for free for the very people who are trying to streal our wealth through this approval.
Considering this consultation has been excluded from many Australians, having hidden the reports, submission and other documentation to stop anyone but highly skilled and experienced people who have used this system before, your doing your best to work for the gas company that is foriegn owned and legally questionable. This will be born out in the numbers with many people I know, interested in making a submission to this project but few if any other individuals will complete this becuase its a purposefully difficult process. Its disapointing this submission is a continuation of the bias towards foreign owned extreme wealthy people over Australians, excluding us from being involved in our future.
So the gas is not needed here and will not bring Australia benifit if history is to be used as a guide, the project has been through an assessment process and the local community clearly showed it did not approve, numerous people protested and farmers are now aware how foreign wealthy can force their way onto any farm and damage Australian businesses with no compensation. This project has already damaged the community, trust in government and economic strength of the Narrabri community. This submission is now using their taxes to damage them more for foriegners with no benifit to Australia?! I am absolutely confused why this is even a proposal considering it will decrease the wealth in Australia, damage jobs, increase extreme weather for generations, remove threatened species which are continueing to be found as the solution to health challenges EG Funnelweb spider venom used to sedate hearts for better heart transplant survival. This is all provable and is a common theme which I note, are parts of an assessment process for a mine or major infrastructure. All of this opportunity, taken away and removed forever for a short term project where if the actual costs were calculated truthfully it should never even get to the approval state.
How can the community have confidence considering you are fighting against Australians for foreigners who have been known to subvert laws to take from anyone, legal or not. This company, industry actually, has an ongoing questionable behaviours to the point that every line in very report must be seen as an attempt to steal from Australia as this is what has been demonstartively proven in court. Report after report of misinformation, found to be misleading, and you base our future on this, giving this theft ligitimacy. The entire process has been corrupted for this to be here and me wasting my time on a saterday instead of building houses.
As an environmental scientist, I can see you can't prove that the company will not impact threatened species in this sensitive habitat. I note the Koala numbers are unknown in this area, the report downplays threatened species, but no proper assessment of cover and abundance for all potential threatened species has been completed. This is all small in comparison impact from this project to the extinction risk of the climate changing due to this project. Fossil fuels have risen the global temperature by 1.5degrees above pre industrial by the use and mining of fossil fuels. Continuation of this, which this project is a significant part, will lead to 2 degrees. I note the new data showing 1.5 has already triggered tipping points leading to the extinction and loss of hundreds of species due to this and other fossil fuel projects going ahead. As runaway climate change will impact all of the species and values in the area of this project and this project is adding to that, this project should can not assess its impacts on threatened species until this effect from the fossil fuel driven climate change is included. Gas is a fossil fuel and thus critical transport lines such as pipelines require climate impact assessment as without the pipeline, there is no viable project. Gas is not clean and the implication is odd and misleading. Using gas has not decreased use of fossil fuels, it has increased the climate impcat. It is the assessment teams job to ensure these impacts are assessed and mitigated for all critical stages of this project.
On a personal note, I'm interested in how you think the gas company can mitigate 15% of Australian homes becoming uninsurble and unliviable in the next 15yrs (according to the Australian government) when this project will add to this cost and many others, not assessed in this approval yet. I see there is no comment on the negative impacts of basic impacts like replacing coastal walkways due to this projects significant implication on extreme weather increases. I see no comment on alot of areas of impact and value loss from this proposal giving me a clear impression, this is a fake consultation process, its not about ensuring the EPA Act and regulations are followed, its about ensuring approval by running over anything or anyone i the way. Its clear, the rising cost of living is due to the ongoing approval of projects such as these for decades, ignoring science, increasing the damage on infrastructure, using courts and other communiy facilities without payments, taking from our community, increasing energy costs thus inflation. Thus, approval of this will increase costs on NSW residents. I;d like to remind you this process is not for you to take their word for it,
The process being difficult, excludes most Australians from being involved, provides limited data, data that is incomplete and more to the point, so limited the impact of this can not be assessed, it shows the intent is not to help Australians. The ongoing shameless mismanagement of Australia resources and blaming renewables for this gross mismanagement, corruption and incompetence is not in any way supported and is called out for the treasonous intent inherent in a situation where foreigners are given advantage forcibly taken from Australians.

1. Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30 metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East forest.
2. Santos’ EIS for the pipeline claims the economic “benefits” of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, but does not take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield.
3. The EIS should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gasfield and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant - given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.

I have visited this beautiful area of NSW and walked the trails and indigenous sites and decry this plan to defile this precious country.

The Pilliga Forest is the last remaining original forested land of this type in the state and must remain undamaged by this proposal.

All studies by respected think tanks, The Australia Institute, particularly have shown there is not a need for more gas in our country. Just stop exporting our natural resources to other countries and store the gas for domestic use.

I cite below under headings my various objections to this proposed project including:-

Impacts on Gomeroi cultural heritage:

The Pilliga as a whole has deep spiritual, social and cultural significance for Gomeroi people. The National Native Title Tribunal acknowledged that all water resources, and Bohena Ck in particular, is of major cultural importance to Gomeroi people. The Tribunal said there should be no ground or surface disturbance within 500m of Bohena Ck without Gomeroi consent.

However, Santos plans to drill the pipeline right under Bohena Ck and across six other major creeks, disturbing the alluvial groundwater. The EIS does not discuss the cultural significance of the entire Bohena Ck for Gomeroi people at all.

Construction of the pipeline will also wipe out two known sites of significance and damage a further four sites. Gomeroi people have said the Pilliga’s integrity is central to their wellbeing and cultural practice and must be kept whole.

Impacts on farm land and forest:

The pipeline crosses 12 farms, and a little under half the land it will disturb is agricultural land, one fifth of the land to be disturbed is cropping land. The other half of the pipeline cuts through the Pilliga forest.
Construction will clear 168 hectares of forest and will cut a 30 metre wide swathe through the Pilliga East forest, causing serious damage for microbats and small mammals.

It will clear habitat and put at risk threatened species that have strongholds in the Pilliga, like the Pilliga Mouse, Eastern pygmy possum, and Corben’s Long-eared Bat.

Other issues:

Santos’ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the pipeline claims the economic “benefits” of the Narrabri gasfield and Hunter gas pipeline, but doesn’t take responsibility for the harm to biodiversity, water and climate from the bigger pipeline and gasfield.

The EIS should be amended to consider the full negative economic impacts of the greenhouse gas emissions from the gasfield and the two pipelines, which is likely to be very significant given Narrabri is predicted to be the sixth biggest source of greenhouse pollution in NSW.

Please reject this application for the construction of this pipeline in light of my above points.

As a resident of Central West NSW, well aware of the limited natural resources we have, I absolutely object to this project going ahead, and my main concern is water, land-clearing and Greenhouse gas emissions.
There is very little understanding of the impacts of methane and the risks of migratory emissions. Very few studies have been published on how clean and green gas really is. It doesn't help that the CSIRO funding and positions have been slashed. When a gas company assures the Queemslanders that boiling rivers and methane in the air are naturally occurring events, let's just say trust levels plummet. So the government wants to green light projects like a cowboy out on some wild west frontier. City premier making big decisions with no idea.
We are dealing with the Great Artesion Basin here. Using up/contaminating this resource for a transition fuel that acts as some supposed quick fix, profits then kept in the hands of a private company — whose environmental and safe infrastructure record is appalling — and the gas then sold back to Australians or sold offshore for others to profit, makes no economic sense. The cost to our country, our farmers, cultural heritage, water, animals and environment is far too great.

Face it. Fossil fuels are on the nose.
Starting up quick and dirty solutions to a global crisis when 66% of neighbours DO NOT want this reeks of hubris. I don't think the state government has been reading the room. One premier and his planning minister making decisions that last for lifetimes, when he could well be toppled before the next election.
I am so angry at the way "development" is being pushed through in this country without a care in the world. We are not a hole in the ground for short term gain, long term pain. Please stop now!
Thankyou.

Submission in support of the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (SSI-53307723)

To: NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure
Re: Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (NLP)
Application: SSI-53307723
EPBC: 2024/10050
Exhibition period: 20 November 2025 to 18 December 2025
NSW Planning Portal

From: Brad Mullard
Address: 32 Courigal Street Lake Haven NSW
Date: 6/12/2025

1. My position and interest
I am writing to support approval of the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (NLP). I make this submission as a gas energy consumer. I rely on gas for everyday household needs and am concerned about energy affordability and reliability over the next decade. Infrastructure that improves access to domestic supply is directly relevant to my household’s energy security and cost-of-living pressures.
2. What the project is
The NLP is a proposed high-pressure gas transmission pipeline of approximately 55 kilometres within the Narrabri Shire, linking the Narrabri Gas Project processing facility at Leewood to the Queensland Hunter Gas Pipeline east of Baan Baa.
The EPBC referral summary describes the pipeline as approximately 50-60 km long, primarily underground, with limited surface infrastructure such as scraper stations, cathodic protection systems, access tracks and communications infrastructure.
The referral also notes an estimated disturbance footprint of approximately 285 hectares, including a construction right of way up to 40 metres wide plus temporary work areas.
3. Strategic importance for NSW energy security
The NSW Government has declared the NLP as both State Significant Infrastructure and Critical State Significant Infrastructure.
The Statement of Reasons records that this status was granted because the pipeline was considered essential to NSW for economic reasons, including that it would:
• provide a crucial link from the Narrabri Gas Project to the NSW gas market,
• strengthen reliability of the east coast market for NSW users, and
• support the development of local supply to place downward pressure on prices.
As a consumer, I consider this logic sound. The NLP is not a speculative standalone line. It is an enabling connection designed to move gas from an approved project into an approved network link, helping to shore up a system that is expected to remain tight at times during the transition.
4. Market evidence supporting the need for resilient supply
Recent public reporting from the ACCC continues to highlight the sensitivity of the east coast supply-demand balance to LNG export decisions regarding uncontracted gas. The ACCC stated in June 2025 that the short-term outlook for 2025 and 2026 had deteriorated, with risks of shortfall depending on export behaviour.
In October 2025, the ACCC advised that the first quarter of 2026 could see a modest surplus of 2 to 24 PJ, but stressed that conditions remained tight in the southern states and still depended on how uncontracted gas was handled.
The Commonwealth’s quarterly outlook similarly references this ACCC surplus range and notes the ongoing role of policy mechanisms requiring LNG producers to offer uncontracted gas domestically before export.
This public evidence supports a straightforward conclusion: NSW benefits from diversified, reliable domestic supply options and the infrastructure needed to deliver them.
5. Support with strong environmental and community conditions
My support is based on the expectation that the project will be subject to robust, enforceable conditions. The EPBC referral summary states the pipeline will be designed and operated in accordance with AS 2885 and the APGA Code of Environmental Practice.
I encourage the Department to ensure these commitments are anchored in detailed approval conditions, including:
Water and groundwater protection
• clear baseline monitoring prior to disturbance,
• conservative setbacks and construction controls for sensitive areas, and
• transparent reporting of performance outcomes.
Biodiversity and land rehabilitation
• an avoidance-first approach during final alignment refinement,
• strict weed, biosecurity and soil management protocols, and
• measurable rehabilitation success criteria with independent auditing.
Landholder and community engagement
The public debate shows there are landholder concerns in the broader Narrabri and Hunter pipeline context.
To build social licence and reduce conflict risk, conditions should emphasise good-faith negotiation, practical property access arrangements, and fair, transparent rehabilitation and compensation frameworks.

Cultural heritage
• early and ongoing engagement with Traditional Owners,
• thorough survey and avoidance planning, and
• culturally appropriate monitoring during works where required.
This approach enables the state to capture the project’s public benefits while setting high standards for local protections.
6. Conclusion
As a gas energy consumer, I support approval of the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline because it is a strategically recognised link that can improve reliability and resilience for NSW users. The project’s declared CSSI status reflects its importance to the state, including its intended role in strengthening supply security and placing downward pressure on prices.
I therefore support the project, subject to strong conditions that protect water resources, biodiversity, cultural heritage and landholder interests consistent with best-practice pipeline development.

Brad Mullard

Thankyou for the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
I strongly object to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline. All the reliable science says that we are currently in an escalating climate catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. To be aiding and abetting this crisis through expanding the fossil fuel industry is not merely reckless – history will judge it as criminal.
The Pilliga is the largest remnant semi-arid woodland in the state, filled with biodiversity and carbon storage. A corridor through it will severely disrupt the ecological integrity of the forest and contribute to the increasing global crisis of extinctions, as well as adding to the carbon footprint of gas extraction, an industry which notoriously under-estimates the amount of methane it emits. Methane is, of course, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.
With two thirds of landholders along the route not agreeing to host the pipeline, there is no social licence for it. In particular, there is very strong objection to it from most Gamilaraay, Gamilaroi and Gomeroi Traditional Owners, who have a long connection to this sacred place, and sustainably managed it for thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of years. They are already among the worst impacted by the increasingly obvious extreme weather caused by global warming, as well as enduring restrictions on their religious and ceremonial obligations in the Pilliga.
Additionally, local farmers – already suffering from worsening droughts, floods, temperature extremes, mini-cyclones and hail - are deeply concerned about contamination and depletion impacts on the Great Artesian Basin, other aquifers, and numerous creeks and waterways that are required by them and human and ecological communities downstream. These impacts have not been adequately considered in the assessments, which should include the ‘water trigger’ in federal environment laws. Furthermore, with corporations such as Allianz now refusing to insure properties with gas infrastructure, many farmers may suffer financial and insecurity issues, and be left with stranded assets.
Long-term local employment, and the environment, would be better served by carefully chosen renewable energy projects, retrofitting housing, low-impact food production, agro-forestry and carbon sequestration plantings, and energy reduction measures.
To summarise, this proposal will make a significant contribution to global warming, impact deleteriously on Aboriginal, farming and ecological communities, and add to the scarcity of potable water in this driest of inhabited continents. I urge the state government not to approve, or support in any way, this potentially disastrous project.
Thankyou for taking the time to read this submission.

Sincerely,
Associate Professor Marty Branagan,
Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Science,
University of New England,
Australia.

Having followed the development of various gas companies over the last 15 to 20 years I am very concerned about the environmental damage that this NLGP Santos is proposing will cause. It is a damaging and polluting pipeline and will open up the Pilliga for Santos’ proposed 850 gas wells which threaten our underground aquifers that supply beautiful water to the Liverpool Plains farms.
To threaten a vital water supply on the driest continent I’m the world is ludicrous.
Santos plans to drill the pipeline under Bohena Creek and across six other major creeks disturbing the alluvial ground water.
Ask your self,Is it environmentally advisable to cut across a State forest and fertile cropping land. I think not.

Submission to NSW Planning against Narrabri Lateral Pipeline
I am an older Australian with many ties to rural NSW where I lived for much of my life. I have three daughters and seven grandchildren. The awful prospect that my daughters and all their generation face in navigating their children through climate change in Australia fills me with anxiety for them. It is my duty as an elder to keep fighting for a stable climate, safe water supplies and intact ecosystems to enable future generations to survive.
My main objection to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline is that it would enable the establishment of the Narrabri Gas Project. The Independent Panning Commission, despite compelling expert advice to the contrary, in 2020 granted permission to Santos to drill 850 gas wells in the Pilliga Forest near Narrabri in and around a recharge zone of the Great Artesian Basin. The approval of the Lateral Pipeline would provide the last link to a larger approved pipeline and thus allowed the gas to be exported to market. The destruction of the Great Artesian Basin would follow as the 850 gas wells depressurised the aquifers and leaked toxic material into them. The Pilliga Forest would lose its integrity in a vast grid of industrialisation which would destroy important cultural sites of the Gomeroi people as well as the ecosystems stretching throughout the region.
The Gomeroi Traditional Owners have determinedly fought against Santos in the Native Title Tribunal for years to defend their land (a process Santos cynically calls “consultation”). They are presently awaiting the outcome of an appeal.
Greenhouse gas emissions from the Narrabri Gas Project will be massive, as methane leaks are always substantial from any production projects. Methane is 84 times more dangerous than CO2 for its first 20 years in the atmosphere. After the gas is burnt, the CO2 produced will add further to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere. Whether produced as Scope 1, Scope 2 or Scope 3, increased emissions can no longer be endured by the planet if the climate is to be kept within the limits which will sustain human life.
My other objection to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline is that the actual building of it will cause damage to the forest, water and ecosystems. However, once it is operational its damaging effects will be much greater, as described above.
For the sake of the generations below mine, I implore you to reject this proposal.

I object to the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline (the project).
We cannot afford to expand the gas industry in Australia - especially when there is opportunity to better direct current gas operations in Queensland to redirect exports to the NSW domestic market. The proposed pipeline will facilitate new development (with likely foreseeable redundancy due to production costs) and initiate environmental destruction along its construction path.
The proposed pipeline will traverse productive agricultural lands. The pipeline presents a direct threat of facilitating the permanent depletion and contamination of the Great Artesian Basin - upon which our environment and farming communities rely.
In this age of extreme climate events - currently experienced across NSW - the pipeline presents unacceptable and unavoidable risks both during construction and operation; extreme floods, heatwaves, fires are on the cards and are happening now in my region. The unintended exposure risk to air pollutants, risk of environmental rehabilitation failing, impacts on water resources, disruption to current agricultural practice and opening the Pilliga Forest to increased fire hazard are expected risks to those communities that live along the pipeline route.
The negative economic impacts of gas industry expansion from the Narrabri Gas Project will spread outside its immediate footprint - facilitated by the project. The project will unconscionably lock in greenhouse emissions for many decades.
We all know - the way to a renewable, cheaper energy future is through less gas and other fossil fuels, rather than more.
The Proponent notes (Strategic context and project need) AEMO has stated gas will continue to play a key role in Australian energy markets, however, fails to establish a case for the Narrabri Gas Project's required extra infrastructure. Other options are possible and less destructive.
The 2020 IPC conclusion regarding the Narrabri Gas Project, that NSW is unlikely to meet its gas needs without that project, fails to address the current real life situation where gas consumption has fallen and gas price has continued to rise.
The project does not have social license to operate. It has been reported (ABC News October 2025) that only 30% of landholders have signed up with Santos along the 800km pipeline route.
I believe it is political suicide for the NSW Premier to threaten compulsory land acquisition for this project. Many people like myself who live outside the development footprint, do not support the project based on the inevitable environmental and social impacts. The case of alternative options to gas supply for NSW have not been transparently considered and costed.
At this time in history where we are all staring down the barrel of climate catastrophe, the Narrabri Lateral Pipeline should be rejected.

I oppose the construction by Santos of a high-pressure gas pipeline from the Pilliga forest to near Baan Baa.
Here is a very brief outline of my reasons:
The effect on the water table would be profound. The Pilliga forest is a recharge zone for the Great Artesian Basin.

A lot of the Forest would have to be cleared. Removing trees and habitat for small mammals is clearly undesirable. Removing trees contributes to climate change, which would obviously be further exacerbated by drilling for coal seam gas.

There is a lot of community opposition to coal seam gas, and the Pilliga forest is important to the Gomeroi people.